athlete, writer, politico, researcher

Main menu

Tag Archives: Michael Ignatieff

It has been fascinating to watch the Conservative campaign strategy evolve over the past two weeks; working in tandem with Sun TV in a quest to secure a Harper majority, and to destroy the opposition leaders.

Aside from the standard issued talking points submitted by the Conservative war room and subsequently written into Sun TV scripts, the Tories are running a co-ordinated effort with their Sun Media counterparts as they try desperately to reach that magical number of 155 seats.

Take for instance, week number one (April 18-22) where the focus was entirely on Michael Ignatieff, the Liberal Party, and the ‘threat’ of a coalition:

Brian Lilley, on Ignatieff and the Liberals:

“Michael Igantieff wants to be in power, but do we know where he stands? He has flipped and flopped on so many big issues that it’s tough to know. Look at his parliamentary record. Look at where he and his party stands. A quick glance shows that they would bring about a national daycare program to raise your kids for you, and they’d regulate what you can do with your own children by outlawing spanking and any use of force.

Now that part’s important.

Any use of force would be illegal. That could include making it illegal for you to strap your two year old, your wiggly two year old, into their car seat against their will … no parent would be allowed to strap their screming kid into a mini van.

The Liberlas would also expand ‘harm reduction sites’ from Vancouver to other major cities across Canada. What does that mean? Government sanctioned (drug) shooting galleries in a neighbourhood near you.

Oh, and convicts in jail? They’ll get ‘harm reduction’ as well. That’s right, free smack for junkies in jail and a needle exchange program to administer illegal drugs in Canada’s prisons.”

Note, that the ‘harm reduction site’ Lilley despises so much refers to Insite, Vancouver’s safe injection site which Harper has been fighting to have shut down despite clear, scientific, evidence the program saves lives.

You can listen to Lilley, Adler, and Levant discussing this issue, and alternatives to Insite (such as dumping drug addicts in a deserted place – yes that what Lilley actually proposes), BY CLICKING HERE.

(Let’s not forget Lilley’s “Exclusive: Ignatieff planned the Iraq war!” fabrication, which made star appearance during their first week on the air.)

Enter the weekend, a monumental surge in the polls by Jack Layton and the NDP, and a shift in strategy for week number two (April 25-29), the week of Sun Media’s “Layton caught in Bawdy house!” smear campaign.

Charles Adler, on Layton and the NDP (April 26):

“Jack Layton’s resemblence to Greek Prime Minister George Papandreou – it’s uncanny, both in appearance, and in policy.

NDP love for big government has the potential to turn Canada into the next Greece, with a top heave public sector that could break the neck of the economy. This prospect is scaring a lot of citizens of Adler Nation.

From Peter in Port Rowan, Ontario, he says ‘in my youth I lived in Communist East Germany and we had to adore Vladimir Lenin – now I see a remarkable physical likeness in Layton to Lenin – their socialist policies are pretty close also. De we really want that kind of a Country? God help us and do not let this come to pass.’

“Layton doesn’t need 100 (seats) to become Prime Minister. He could do it with fewer than 80. What are the consequences of a coalition led either by the NDP or by the Liberals? David Frum made that clear last night, said that Harper would not govern if he get’s a minority. And the premise is, if Harper doesn’t get the magic 155 seat total, Jack — with the help of Igantieff and Duceppe — Jack could move into 24 Sussex with Olivia.

The ‘Stop Jack’ campaign, in the next few days, may proove meaningless if the blood is already in the water.”

Adler – “At this point, what’s most important, I think you and I could agree, what’s most important is not having the NDP at 24 Sussex, I think that’s what’s crucial. So here’s my question to you: If the Liberals end up in the number three spot as now appears likely, if they’re number three will they be willing to do some sort of deal with Stephen Harper, to give the Country as much stability as possible, and to keep Jack and Olivia out of 24 Sussex? I think that’s the question tonight that most people are most interested in pursuing.”

Donovan – “We’ve agreed and disagreed on many things over the past year, but I think one thing we both can agree on is that Jack Layton would be an absolute calamity for this country, and I think a lot of Liberals, like myself, who want reform in the party and want us to reach further and do things better do not see a Jack Layton led coalition.”

Take note of Adler’s statement from April 26: “The ‘Stop Jack’ campaign, in the next few days, may proove meaningless if the blood is already in the water.”

Two days later, on April 28, the domain www.liberalsforharper.ca was registered, and the ‘stop Layton’ Astroturf campaign was officially launched. That evening, Stephen Taylor, director of the National Citizen’s Coalition (NCC), wondered aloud if there were “Liberals out there who would rather vote for Harper than see Jack Layton form any sort of government.”

On the morning of April 29, Taylor introduced liberalsforharper.ca to the public for the first time, feigning ignorance of its origin in the process.

That evening Adler spent a good portion of his show promoting the liberalsforharper.ca cause (as detailed above), building on a plea he issued to readers earlier in the day:

“A few years back, (Ignatieff) cracked a few standing beside Stephane Dion. There is very little doubt that when the clock strikes 12 on Monday night, the party of Chretien and Trudeau will have struck out, finishing No. 3 for the first time ever. The big question on Tuesday morning will be, how does the Grit family deal with sickly Uncle Grit?

On Tuesday morning, Dr. Stephen Harper must scrub up, then go into the operating room.

The PM needs to find the right scalpel to save Uncle Grit’s life. If he can find a way to give Michael Ignatieff a shred of dignity, he might be able to prevent Ignatieff from seeking revenge by cutting a deal with Jack Layton, making the NDP leader prime minister.

There is a coalition government in Britain today. It was formed by the party that got the most seats with the party that got the third-most. It was formed by the Conservatives and Liberals. Do we still have a British parliamentary system?

“I believe that as the choice becomes clear … a lot of traditional, Liberal, moderate voters, are going to look and going to say that the Conservative platform — and where the Conservative Party is taking the economy — is a hell of a lot closer to what I think than what the NDP has in its platform …”

“I think a lot of Liberals who understand that, are going to think twice and I think ultimately, rather than follow their party blindly down an alley toward the kind of merger with the NDP that Mr. Ignatieff mused about, I think they will take a hard look at voting for this (Conservative) party, and I welcome that.”

As Canadians head to the polls in what, by all accounts, promises to be an historic election, it’ll be interesting to see how the partnership bewteen the Conservatives, Sun Media, and the NCC continues to unfold.

If Harper fails to get his majority, you can be sure Sun Media will be urging Liberals to ‘do the responsible thing’ and ‘save the country from Layton,’ knowing full well a full merger between the Liberals and the NDP is a very real possibility.

And if that happens, the prospect of a Conservative government completely evaporates, not only for the current election cycle, but quite possibly well into the future.

“It doesn’t have to be true. It just has to be plausible and it strikes me as plausible.”

This statement was made back in September of 2009 by Tom Flanagan, a University of Calgary political scientist and former adviser to Stephen Harper, in reference to the sudden resurgence of the “C” word from within the Conservative caucus.

It seems as though each time the Conservatives find themselves in a position of vulnerability, thePMO issues talking points for Conservative members to trumpet. Repeatedly. In front of as many cameras as possible.
It’s through this very tactic that the idea of a ‘coalition’ once again becomes the focal point of political conversation, whether or not it has anything to do with the topic being discussed.

The ‘coalition’ bogeyman has proven to be a favorite tool of the Conservative’s, because simply suggesting such a possibility requires no facts, evidence, or substance to back it up. As Tom Flanagan said, “it doesn’t have to be true. It just has to be plausible”. Simply raising the prospect of a coalition, tossing in a “separatist”, a “socialist” and a “power grab”, and the scheme to create an atmosphere of unrest or chaos is complete.

The irony is, Stephen Harper himself headed an ‘unholy coalition with the separatists and socialists’ in 2004 in an effort to bring down Paul Martin’s minority government. Once again demonstrating that the phony outrage and fear-mongering over ‘power grabs’ and ‘overturning elections’ is nothing short of Harpocrisy, – a unique kind of hypocrisy – where it’s perfectly fine if Stephen Harper does it.

It is, however, important that the record on the past coalition be set straight.
First of all, Michael Ignatieff was NOT the man who sought to form the 2008 coalition. That man was Stephan Dion, the leader of the Liberal Party. The media even pointed out Ignatieff’s clear distaste for a coalition, and commented about his silence on the matter.

In December 2008 on CTV’s Question Period , Ignatieff informed Jane Taber that he was not privy to the discussions being held between Dion, Layton and Duceppe, and had no first hand knowledge what options were being discussed. When the letter to the Governor General was signed at that memorable press conference, it was not Michael Ignatieff at the table; it was Jack Layton, Gilles Duceppe and Stephane Dion. It wasn’t until Ignatieff replaced Dion as the party leader that he had any formal involvement in the 2008 coalition, and even then did so reluctantly.

It’s Ignatieff’s words from 2008 that Pierre Poilievre is so fond of (partially) quoting, repeating how Ignatieff said he was “prepared to form a coalition government and to lead that government”. Of course, Poilievre doesn’t bother to repeat the entire quote, for fear the public will realize the true context and intent of what was said. For that, you must go back to the December 10, 2008 press conference with Ignatieff, following his temporary appointment to replace Stephane Dion, THIS is what Michael Ignatieff said:

“I told caucus I will vote non-confidence in this government. I am prepared to enter into a coalition government if that is what the Governor General asks me to do…I also made it clear to the caucus, no party can have the confidence of the country if it decides to vote against a budget it hasn’t even read.”

Jump ahead to September 2009 when the Conservatives found themselves once again facing the possibility of a vote of non-confidence. They eagerly rolled out the talk of another coalition in the works, despite clear indications that the allegation was not based in reality. When directly asked about the possibility of another coalition, Ignatieff unequivocally killed the very notion. In a press conference on December 11 2009, Ignatieff stated:
“Stephen Harper believes he’s entitled to a majority government. But in order to get that majority, he’s going around saying that the Liberal party would enter into a coalition government. Let me be very clear. The Liberal Party would not agree to a coalition. In January (2009) we did not support a coalition, and we do not support a coalition today or tomorrow.”

So, that’s that. End of story. Case closed. Time to talk about issues, Right? Not as long as the Conservatives could keep the fantasy going.
Noted conservative political columnist Don Martin even dedicated an article to the willful ignorance being demonstrated by the Conservatives, and their insistence on keeping the idea of a coalition alive.
In the end, though, there was no election and the coalition talk once again disappeared.

Fast forward to January 2010, and the Conservatives once again find themselves sliding in the polls, embattled in prorogation backlash, tangled in torture allegations, and subjected to international scorn. Cue the coalition propaganda!

On January 25, members of the Conservative Party took to the airwaves, simultaneously pushing the coalition nonsense on Canada’s two political shows: CBC’s Power & Politics, and CTV’s Powerplay.
On CTV, Rick Dykstra was hard at work playing up threat of a coalition, as Pierre Poilievre was subjecting the viewers of CBC to his repetitious talking points. If that wasn’t enough, the official Conservative website was being updated with coalition fear-mongering, stating among other things, that “Bob Rae is trying to re-write history” and “Canadians won’t forget how Michael Ignatieff and the Liberals tried to overturn the results of the last election through their Coalition with the NDP and the Bloc Québécois”.

It’s shameful that the Conservatives think so little of the collective intelligence of Canadians that they believe repeating disproven accusations and political nonsense about an imaginary coalition, which exists only in the convoluted Conservative psyche, will draw support at the polls. That atmosphere of political unease and confusion is exactly what the Conservatives rely on to get elected.
Thankfully, Canadians are far smarter than Stephen Harper gives them credit for. They’re not buying in to his “Weapons Of Mass Destruction” tactics. Canadians are fed up with Republican style political games and Conservative propaganda straight out of the Karl Rove playbook.

It’s time for all Canadians, including the Canadian media to actively call out the lies as they happen. In order to have an honest political debate, politicians must debate honestly.

Canadians are fed up with tuning into political talk shows, only to see the Conservatives dodge questions with threats of ‘evil coalitions’ and ‘secret back-room deals to usurp the Conservative government’. When given a platform, the Conservatives will throw around the threat of a ‘coalition’ like Rudy Giuliani does the tragedy of ‘9/11’.

It’s time, for once and for all, to put an end to this nonsense.
There is no coalition, there will not be a coalition, and every time a Conservative rolls out the ‘coalition’ threat, it simply serves as an indication that the’d rather not answer the question, discuss the topic, or verify the information put before them.